2018 (8) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are registered under the service tax law for the services of 'maintenance and repair'. As per the amendment in Budget, 2003 amending certain provisions of Finance Act, 1994 relating to chargeability of service tax on service receiver of goods transport operator services, the appellants have paid under protest an amount of Rs. 2,18,558/- on 12/11/2003 being the service tax on the goods transport operator services for the period from 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998. Later on 04/05/2004, they have filed a refund claim for Rs. 2,18,558/- being the service tax erroneously paid by them for the period from 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998 on goods transport operator services in view of the retrospective amendment of Notification No.43/97-ST dt. 05/11/1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of service tax and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,18,558/-, in terms of Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also demanded interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Order-in-Original No.93/2007 dt. 26/12/2007. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also rejected the same. Hence this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the orders of the lower authorities confirming the recovery of amount refunded is beyond the show-cause notice. He further submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of show-cause notice. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Godres Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai [2008(229) ELT 484 (SC)] ii. CC, Mumbai Vs. toyo Engineering India Ltd. [2006(2010) ELT 513 (SC)] iii. CCE&C, Surat Vs. sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. [2015(326) ELT 3 (SC)] iv. Excel Tyre & Rubber Products Vs. CCE, Mangaluru [2016(8) TMI 1070-CESTAT Bangalore] v. MTR Foods Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore [2011(22) STR 342 (Tri. Bang.)] 4.2. He further submitted that the Department did not file any appeal against the Order-in-Original No.51/2005 dt. 25/05/2005 granting refund to the appellants and as a result, the said order has attained finality and without challenging the order granting the refund, the present ....